P.JYOTHIMANI,J.
The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Judge dated 20.2.2008 passed in W.P.No.34675 of 2003, by which the learned Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein and directed the appellants to grant State Freedom Fighters Pension to the respondent from 20.2.1977.
2. The writ petitioner is stated to have participated in the Freedom Movement and was arrested and imprisoned during Quit India Movement from 15.8.1942 to 23.2.1943 launched by the then Trivancore-Cochin Congress. It is stated that he also participated in various agitations during Freedom Movement, for which he was arrested and imprisoned at Neyyatingara Police Lock-up from 25.12.1938 to 15.7.1939. One Krishna Sastri, who was one of the freedom fighters and recipients of State and Central Freedom Fighters pension, has issued a certificate dated 15.5.1974, stating that the petitioner was imprisoned along with him from 12.5.1938 to 15.7.1939 at Neyyatingara police lock up and participated in freedom movement. It is also stated that the Trivandrum District Congress Committee, which was a part of Trivancore Congress prior to State re-organisation also issued a certificate dated 11.8.1972, stating that the petitioner underwent imprisonment for having taken part in the banned area of Vattiarkavu Conference for seven months in the year 1938. It is stated that former M.L.A. A.Kunjan Nadar issued a certificate stating that the petitioner was imprisoned along with him for having participated in the Quit India Movement.
3. The petitioner was issued a certificate by one K.V. Parameswaran Nair, who is a recipient of Central and State Freedom Fighters Pension to the effect that the petitioner was imprisoned from 15.8.1942 to 23.02.1943 in Kuzhithurai and Thukalai lock up. It is also stated that one Gopalakrishna Pillai, a recipient of freedom fighters pension has also certified that the petitioner was imprisoned along with him from 15.8.1942 to 21.3.1943. Yet another freedom fighter Mr.A.Raphel, also certified to the same effect. Based on the said documents, it appears, the petitioner approached the appellants on many times on 19.2.2003, 29.03.2003 and 15.4.2003, claiming pension for the period from 20.01.1977 to 15.04.2003 and the same was not granted. It is seen that the first appellant in the letter dated 28.4.2003, has directed the second appellant, the Collector to check the claim of the petitioner on the basis of co-prisoner certificates issued by K.V.Parameswaran Nair and N.Gamalia. It appears that the second respondent has not recommended the name of the writ petitioner on the ground that he did not produce any acceptable document.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in the writ petition, who are the appellants herein, it is admitted that the writ petitioner had produced co-prisoner certificates, however the same were not accepted because, the District Level Screening Committee headed by the Collector felt that the same were not issued by the persons who were authorised in that regard. Another reason that has been stated in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner has not produced any personal knowledge certificate from any official certifier. It is also stated that the petitioner is receiving Tamil Mozhi Kavalar Pension of Rs.3000/- per month from the State Government Order. It is nowhere stated in the counter affidavit that the said K.V.Parameswaran Nair, who had issued co-prisoner certificate in favour of the writ petitioner and who is stated to be a recipient of Freedom Fighters Pension did not undergo imprisonment, but the only reason assigned is that K.V.Parameswaran Nair, is not authorised by the Government to issue co-prisoner certificate.
5. The learned Judge, relying upon the judgement rendered in K.P.Nataraj vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By Deputy Secretary to the Government, Public (Political Pension) Department and another ( 2003 Writ Law Reporter 835), held that the issuing of certificate by a co-prisoner is sufficient especially in the circumstances that the Government is not able to trace out the records regarding the person's imprisonment materials.
6. In Gurdial Singh vs. Union of India [(2001) 8 SCC 8], the Supreme Court, while dealing with the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972, which is a central scheme, has held that the conduct of the Government in attempting to make rowing enquiry is disgusting. The Supreme Court in that case has no doubt held that the petitioner therein was not entitled for freedom fighter pension from the original date of application on the facts of the case, but laid down the standard of proof required for the purpose of obtaining freedom fighters pension, holding that the standard of proof is not like one that is required in a criminal case and the technicality should not stand in the way of granting such relief to those who fought for freedom of the country. The relevant portion of the judgement of the Supreme Court is as follows:
" 9. We are satisfied that the order of the respondent authorities impugned before the High Court (Annexure P-14) dated 1.11.2000 is liable to be set aside and the appellant entitled to the grant of relief of pension. However, keeping in view the lapse of time and peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant him the pension with effect from 12.3.1973 as claimed and feel that the ends of justice would be met if the appellant is granted pension with effect from March 1996 when he was forced o file Writ Petition No.12350 of 1996."
7. The said judgment has been followed in a number of cases by Division Benches and Single Judges of this Court including the Division Bench consisting P.Sathasivam,J.(as he then was) and N.Paul Vasanthakumar,J. in the State Government of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Under Secretary, Public (Political Pension II) Department vs. K.S.Annapparaja (died) by Lrs., and another reported in CDJ 2007 MHC 1012. In another judgment reported in N.Palaniappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By Chief Secretary to Government, Chennai and another, one of us (P.Jyothimani,J.) had an occasion to consider and decide a similar issue by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in 2001 (8) SCC 8 (cited supra) and also the abovesaid judgment of the Division Bench in CDJ 2007 MHC 1012 (cited supra).
8. In fact, as correctly pointed out by the learned Judge (P.Sathasivam,J., as he then was) in K.P.Natarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2003 WLR 835), co-prisoner certificate is certainly a document which can be relied upon for the purpose of granting freedom fighters pension. The relevant portion of the judgment is, " 7. The other essential condition is that the petitioner has to produce co-prisoner certificates as notified by the Government. It is the claim of the petitioner that he had produced a certificate from the Freedom Fighter V.N.Arunchalam, who is getting pension as per order PPO 2147/S, who was lodged in Coimbatore Central Prison and Alipuram Jail in Bellary District during the period 14.09.1942 to 11.09.1944. The petitioner also produced another certificate from the Freedom Fighter one Nachipallan, who was lodged in Central Prison, Coimbatore during the period 29.09.1942 to 11.09.1944, who is also getting pension from the State Government vide order No.2706/S. Unfortunately, these certificates issued by the Freedom Fightrers, who were also lodged in the prison during the relevant period, who participated in the freedom struggle along with the petitioner, were not accepted by the Government, as these freedom fighters are not recognised or given in the list of 15 freedom fighters identified by the Government. Inasmuch as the two certifiers, viz., V.N.Arunachalam and Nachipallan - freedom fighters were lodged in Central Prison, Coimbatore during the relevant time along with the petitioner, I am of the view that the Government is not justified in rejecting those certificates and insisting that persons named in the list of 15 alone to be given such certificate. The petitioner has also produced copy of those certificates vide page 2 and 3 of the typed set of papers.
8. It is also useful to refer one important fact that when the petitioner made an application for grant of State Freedom Fighter Pension through the District Collector-second respondent herein, the matter was enquired by the District Committee and based on the enquiry, the District Collector forward his report dated 17.02.1999 to the Government, recommending the case of the petitioner for grant of State Freedom Fighters Pension. The said report finds place at Page 4 and 5 of the typed set of papers. The report shows that the petitioner had obtained co-prisoner certificate from one K.P.Thiruvengadam, Nachipallan and V.N.Arunachalam, who were imprisoned in the same District. The report further states that the petitioner was a co-prisoner along with Nachipallan and V.N.Arunachalam, the said Nachipallan was getting State Freedom Fighters Pension and V.N.Arunachalam was getting pension from the Central Government. All those details are available in the report of the District Collector dated 17.02.1999.
9. In the light of the abundant materials, it is surprising that the first respondent has informed that the petitioner had not furnished details regarding his confinement and the co.prisoner certificates produced by the petitioner are not acceptable. The Government has also erroneously rejected the report of the District Collector, which is based on the enquiry made by the District Committee. The impugned order of the first respondent cannot be sustained in view of the decisions rendered in W.P.No.19152 of 1996 dated 21.01.2000 (PSJ), W.P.Nos.15465, 15596 of 2001 dated 12.03.2002 (VKJ), which was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.2142 and 2143 of 2003 dated 01.07.2003."
In such view of the matter, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that the petitioner has not produced any acceptable document.
9. The next point to be decided is, as to from which date the writ petitioner would be entitled for freedom fighters pension. In the communication of the Collector dated 29.2.1977, he referred to a petition of the writ petitioner dated 20.2.1977 relating to the custody of the petitioner in jail. Therefore, it is clear that it is not as if the petitioner has made his representation for the first time in the year 2003. The payment of freedom fighters pension at the specified quantum, is starting from 1972, as follows:
Date Pension MA 22.5.1972 to 31.3.1979 75
-
1.4.1979 to 24.1.1981 100
-
25.1.1981 to 9.6.1986 150
-
10.6.1986 to 31.7.1989 250
-
1.8.1989 to 31.12.1991 350 15 1.1.1992 to 31.7.1992 400 15 1.8.1992 to 14.8.1997 1000 15 15.8.1997 to 10.6.2005 3000 15
10. Considering the above said facts and also taking note of the representation of the petitioner from which date he is seeking for pension, that is, the date of his earlier representation, viz., 20.2.1977, and taking into consideration the age of the writ petitioner, who is stated to be 91 years old, we are of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if a direction is given to the appellants to pay freedom fighters pension to the petitioner from 15.8.1997. In such view of the matter, the order of the learned Judge is confirmed with a modification to the extent that the pension should be paid from 15.8.1997. The appellants are directed to pay the arrears of pension from 15.8.1997 till date within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order and also continue to pay the pension every month.
With the above modification, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
kh To
1. The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Public (Political Pension 3) Department Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Collector Kanniyakumari @ Nagercoil